The real meaning of 'Sin'?

[RabbiO]

Ah..... Now...... Since the Mosaic Laws as shown in my bible are not the only, or the full, list....

That’s not what I said.

 

[badger]

I would hazard that Paul had a pretty good insight into what his faith was about.

His faith.....yes! .......his.

actually he explained that the Law, by which he means the binding principles of the Covenant with Isreal, refers to Israel, and does not place any obligation upon the gentile believer, eg circumcision, etc.

You've just got rid of one law, Thomas.
That will leave about 600 to go!

I don't think so.

....of course.

And yet you base this on the writings of Paul and the young churches, who transmitted in those texts we now hold as Scripture something they 'clearly ignored' and yet at the same time believed what they 'clearly ignored' to be something worth dying for ...

The writings of Paul did not mention a sentence about anything that Jesus said or did did his mission, save from constant repitition about communion, death and resurrection, which most Christians surely knew about already, else they would not have been Christians.

 

[Faithfulservant]

His faith.....yes! .......his.

You've just got rid of one law, Thomas.
That will leave about 600 to go!

....of course.

The writings of Paul did not mention a sentence about anything that Jesus said or did did his mission, save from constant repitition about communion, death and resurrection, which most Christians surely knew about already, else they would not have been Christians.

Jesus came for His people not the gentiles. Jesus chose Paul as the spostle to the Gentiles. Paul did speak extensively on faith and the commandments Jesus gave. You have a problem with Paul i take it?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Paul did speak extensively on faith and the commandments Jesus gave.

I'd just like to remind everybody, that this is the Judaism forum.

 

[RabbiO]

I'd just like to remind everybody, that this is the Judaism forum.

Maybe this thread could be moved to the more general Abrahamic Religions.

 

[Faithfulservant]

Ha! Wow i didnt realize this was the Judaism forum. Sorry about that. I saw mention of Paul and Jesus and didnt even check.

 

[badger]

That’s not what I said.

Ok, Rabbi0.

Jesus came for His people not the gentiles. Jesus chose Paul as the spostle to the Gentiles. Paul did speak extensively on faith and the commandments Jesus gave. You have a problem with Paul i take it?

Hi Faithfulservant.
Yes, absolutely.......
I believe that Jesus stood up for the peasant classes of the Northern Jewish provinces, which would encompass about 80% + of the whole population. That's just what I believe, and so I see Jesus in a similar way to the Brave heart of Scotland, I would say.

 

[badger]

I'd just like to remind everybody, that this is the Judaism forum.

It was my absolute wish to launch this thread for anybody to read....generally. Can somebody please out it back?

 

[Thomas]

His faith.....yes! .......his.

Quite. His Jewish faith, and his understanding of that in the light of his revelation of Christ.

You've just got rid of one law, Thomas.
That will leave about 600 to go!

I did say 'eg' ...

The writings of Paul did not mention a sentence about anything that Jesus said or did did his mission,

The writings of Paul are saturated in the message and meaning of Jesus.

... save from constant repitition about communion, death and resurrection,

Which is what Jesus said, and did.

which most Christians surely knew about already, else they would not have been Christians.

Well if you've read and contemplated Paul, you'd know the answer to this.

 

[Thomas]

I initially moved this post to judaism because it was directed at primarily a Jewish belief.

I've now moved it, as suggested, to Abrahamics generally ...

 

[badger]

I initially moved this post to judaism because it was directed at primarily a Jewish belief.

I've now moved it, as suggested, to Abrahamics generally ...

Thank you, Thomas.

 

[badger]

Back to the question of 'real meaning of sin'......

I think that sin was any breaking of any of the laws, and sin would lead to failure of one sort or another, a TEMPORAL rather than spiritual loss. If that is applied to any of the laws then such a loss could be identified as being either a sickness, weakness, separation or failure of some kind, whereas to keep the laws would bring cohesion, health, strength and success.

The Israelites needed to grow as quickly as possible, and so as soon as a girl became a woman (12-13?) she would be married to a young man (14-15?) for the start of as large a family as possible. And s the nation could multiply very quickly.

And sexual intimacy outside of the marriage could cause sickness through the nation and serious weakness. Such laws were about survival rather than hellish condemnation.

Any opinions, please?

 

[Thomas]

Any opinions, please?

Well I disagree, but clearly you'd expect that ...

And again, as your focus seems to be Israel and the Hebrew Scriptures, I'll leave it to someone else (@RabbiO) to answer.

 

[badger]

Well I disagree, but clearly you'd expect that ...

And again, as your focus seems to be Israel and the Hebrew Scriptures, I'll leave it to someone else (@RabbiO) to answer.

No Thomas, my focus is towards how Christianity perceives a few of these laws, and how it thinks about Sin. But it could also be focused towards Islam and Baha'i, you know.

 

[Craz]

Back to the question of 'real meaning of sin'......

I think that sin was any breaking of any of the laws, and sin would lead to failure of one sort or another, a TEMPORAL rather than spiritual loss. If that is applied to any of the laws then such a loss could be identified as being either a sickness, weakness, separation or failure of some kind, whereas to keep the laws would bring cohesion, health, strength and success.

The Israelites needed to grow as quickly as possible, and so as soon as a girl became a woman (12-13?) she would be married to a young man (14-15?) for the start of as large a family as possible. And s the nation could multiply very quickly.

And sexual intimacy outside of the marriage could cause sickness through the nation and serious weakness. Such laws were about survival rather than hellish condemnation.

Any opinions, please?

I'm not sure I can give an adequate reply, but will reply based on my early days of attending orthodox Jewish schools, both primary and grammar.
Although the schools were orthodox, by no means were most of the students or staff(which also included non-Jews).
There was a large amount of Jewish studies as well as all other subjects. There was mincha(afternoon prayers) for everyone and morning prayers for those that came for early lessons(voluntary) and evening prayers(voluntary) for those that came for extra lessons.

During all those years, we were made aware of the importance of following the mitzvot, as best we could. Our teachers varied in this, however I can only remember one teacher* who tried to make us feel bad if we weren't more religious.

My observations of the more religious students who came from religious families(which I did not) was that they had something that I did not have. Today I'd call it a 'good vibe'. They had love of the Torah and of fulfilling mitzvot. This was reflected in their family life(I had many orthodox friends, so I saw them in their homes).
Their families were usually larger than the non-orthodox, which corresponds to the emboldened above. When challenged about their larger families, they said it was to make sure the Jews don't disappear from the world.(I always thought this showed a lack of faith in God, but never voiced it...until now)

I personally found Torah lessons, mostly boring and attending mincha and other mitzvot like tefillin a burden. Many years later, my life changed and I did become observant for a short period and had a taste of what I had observed earlier in life. (Today I am non-Theist and just a lover of life.)

RE:And sexual intimacy outside of the marriage could cause sickness through the nation and serious weakness. Such laws were about survival rather than hellish condemnation.
I am uncertain what these laws were, but would add that I have ever heard of 'hellish condemnation' from some Christians.


*surprisingly enough he was a Liverpudlian, without a sense of humour

 

[wil]

And sexual intimacy outside of the marriage could cause sickness through the nation and serious weakness. Such laws were about survival rather than hellish condemnation.

Any opinions, please?

Adultering your principles may have a deleterious affect on you and how folks perceive you.

I see the OT laws as what that society thought was needed at that time to benefit that society....some appropriate they thought for that time and for that region for those people.

Depending on whether you are of that religion that belief determines how it affects you or how you let it affect you.

I don't see a requirement of being of any religion to benefit from some of the "laws" of any religion. Some are just dang good idears!

Some though imo have aged or are no longer beneficial to all.

 

[badger]

I'm not sure I can give an adequate reply, but will reply based on my early days of attending orthodox Jewish schools, both primary and grammar.
Although the schools were orthodox, by no means were most of the students or staff(which also included non-Jews).
There was a large amount of Jewish studies as well as all other subjects. There was mincha(afternoon prayers) for everyone and morning prayers for those that came for early lessons(voluntary) and evening prayers(voluntary) for those that came for extra lessons.

During all those years, we were made aware of the importance of following the mitzvot, as best we could. Our teachers varied in this, however I can only remember one teacher* who tried to make us feel bad if we weren't more religious.

My observations of the more religious students who came from religious families(which I did not) was that they had something that I did not have. Today I'd call it a 'good vibe'. They had love of the Torah and of fulfilling mitzvot. This was reflected in their family life(I had many orthodox friends, so I saw them in their homes).
Their families were usually larger than the non-orthodox, which corresponds to the emboldened above. When challenged about their larger families, they said it was to make sure the Jews don't disappear from the world.(I always thought this showed a lack of faith in God, but never voiced it...until now)

I personally found Torah lessons, mostly boring and attending mincha and other mitzvot like tefillin a burden. Many years later, my life changed and I did become observant for a short period and had a taste of what I had observed earlier in life. (Today I am non-Theist and just a lover of life.)

Very interesting,.... Thank you.

RE:And sexual intimacy outside of the marriage could cause sickness through the nation and serious weakness. Such laws were about survival rather than hellish condemnation.
I am uncertain what these laws were, but would add that I have ever heard of 'hellish condemnation' from some Christians.

I used to visit a US Forum with lots of rather extreme White (oh yes!) Christians and if homosexuality, adultery or certain other breeches of Torah Laws were mentioned the howls of condemnation and hoped for punishments (by mankind as well as God) were many! They loved the word 'abomination', just loved it!

 

[badger]

Adultering your principles may have a deleterious affect on you and how folks perceive you.

Oh! They sounded like fun!

I see the OT laws as what that society thought was needed at that time to benefit that society....some appropriate they thought for that time and for that region for those people.

Yes! At that time! Although as you say, many are still good today.

Depending on whether you are of that religion that belief determines how it affects you or how you let it affect you.

The Mosaic Laws were just a blueprint for the survival of any people...... The Abrahamic God offered them to anybody, it is reported in the bible.

I don't see a requirement of being of any religion to benefit from some of the "laws" of any religion. Some are just dang good idears!

I love the 'You must build a parapet around roofs' law....... our Council insists on this as well, and for the same reasons!

Some though imo have aged or are no longer beneficial to all.

Absolutely! It's just sad that certain religions cling to them (when it suits).